Printing our forum posts in BRM Magazine

[RFS]

I made some comments on the difficulties of fitting of a DCC decoder in the new Hornby LSWR 700  (see post #417 in http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79964-Hornby-drummond-700/page-17 ).  Today I noticed the review of this loco in the August BRM magazine contains a heavily edited version of my post.  Although attributed to me, I was surprised this has been done without my prior knowledge, especially as my solution (ie remove the weights) was omitted.

 

So does anything we say on this forum now become property of BRM?

[Trevellan]

Unless my views were totally misrepresented, I would not see such use of my pronouncements as a concern. We are, after all,  making comments in a public forum. In your case I would see it as a compliment.

[micklner]

I made some comments on the difficulties of fitting of a DCC decoder in the new Hornby LSWR 700  (see post #417 in http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79964-Hornby-drummond-700/page-17 ).  Today I noticed the review of this loco in the August BRM magazine contains a heavily edited version of my post.  Although attributed to me, I was surprised this has been done without my prior knowledge, especially as my solution (ie remove the weights) was omitted.

 

So does anything we say on this forum now become property of BRM?

If they have ignored half your solution is about as good a Chocolate Teapot. Public Forum is irrelevant they should ask your permission first.

[PaulRhB]

Hmmm quoting a passage in context with the source acknowledged is perfectly legit for the purposes of review. Yes it's nice to be asked but it's a standard way of quoting parts of books etc and comments in reviews. Take it as a complement that it was credited as usually you see, "comments on online forums" with it all in the reviewers words. To be honest quoting the source is more useful and polite to me but I appreciate views differ

[PaulRhB]

I'd also guess that by posting on BRMs forum it's effectively consent and writing a comment to the magazine and it's their choice in the letter columns what they edit and print. I wouldn't be surprised to find there's probably a legal piece in the rules about it being BRMs right to use edited comments.

Edit: there isn't but Ben has clarified that with public domain below.

[61661]

I made some comments on the difficulties of fitting of a DCC decoder in the new Hornby LSWR 700  (see post #417 in http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79964-Hornby-drummond-700/page-17 ).  Today I noticed the review of this loco in the August BRM magazine contains a heavily edited version of my post.  Although attributed to me, I was surprised this has been done without my prior knowledge, especially as my solution (ie remove the weights) was omitted.

 

So does anything we say on this forum now become property of BRM?

Good afternoon,

I've just been alerted to this new thread and wanted to clarify the situation to avoid any misunderstanding or speculation. Quoting posts that have been made on RMweb (or other social media platforms) is not a new thing, we've done it on many occasions in the past and, in the wider world, quoting comments made on Twitter etc seems to have become a staple of news reporting.

However, as it was me that added the quotes from here and facebook to that review, I will gladly apologise here for not contacting you first and any upset that might have caused. It is a public forum and, as such, any comments made are by definition in the public domain, rather than the 'property of BRM' or anyone else.

Such quotes have to be edited for length, which is what happened here. in the circumstances I thought the most important point was the lack of space for a decoder, which is most unusual in a tender loco. We direct readers to the relevant thread on RMweb, where they can read more comments and discover the solution to the problem.

It's a new development for BRM reviews and will take some time to settle down, but we think it's a valuable service for readers and the feedback so far confirms that. If it puts minds at rest, in future I will post a quick note in the relevant thread asking if anyone has any problem with us quoting their posts in selected reviews.

Does that work for everyone?

 

Have a good evening

 

Ben

[jwealleans]

Given that most of the Internet is a public forum, whether we like it or not, being quoted may be a fact of life.

 

Suitable accreditation and a link back to the original post/page, however strongly we may feel about them are really no more than courtesy. Ben's approach above seems eminently sensible and goes beyond what anyone publishing anything which is not protected by copyright should expect.

 

If you're not happy about it, don't post.

 

Personally, I'd be complimented to be quoted by one of the magazines, but opinions will undoubtedly differ.

[MikeTrice]

Jonathan, can we quote you on that?

[RFS]

Let me say I'm not unhappy to have been quoted - pleasantly surprised in fact.  It's just that I would have thought the reviewer might have taken the opportunity to check the facts for himself  - after all I might have been technically wrong.  Usually, the body is taken off and a photo included so that readers can see the DCC layout for themselves, but this wasn't done here. In fact, there's only a brief mention of there being a decoder socket in the tender in the text, so the only available information on fitting a decoder is my edited post. Hence readers might conclude it's difficult and not purchase the model, and that's not what I wished to convey.  Another brand of decoder - especially one smaller than the Lenz Standard+ I fitted - would probably be easier.

[kandc_au]

I thought Andy Y said early on that members would be approached before anything was printed from them.

Personally I wouldn't have an issue myself....but that is NOT the point.

 

Khris

[JohnR]

I agree Khris, though I'd be flattered that any of my wibblings were considered good enough to put in the magazine.

[wombatofludham]

In the unlikely event of me ever writing anything remotely cogent enough to be quoted, print and be damned. 

[melmerby]

If they have ignored half your solution is about as good a Chocolate Teapot. Public Forum is irrelevant they should ask your permission first.

Chocolate teapots are available and no they don't totally disappear with the first filling of hot liquid!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-29126161

 

Keith

[DavidB-AU]

It is a public forum and, as such, any comments made are by definition in the public domain

No they are not! By definition, and by applicable UK law and international treaties, copyright is automatic and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work. Copyright remains with the author and will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created. It is an offence to copy or adapt the work without the consent of the owner.

 

See also section 3 of the RMWeb Acceptable Use Policy.

 

To be blunt, you have no business being editor of a magazine if you do not understand even the basics of copyright. I suggest you seek urgent legal advice before reproducing anything else from this forum. I do not say that lightly.

 

Cheers

David

[Wheatley]

But it also says:

 

8.2
Any material you upload to our Site will be considered non-confidential and non-proprietary, and we have the right to use, copy, distribute and disclose to third parties any such material for any purpose.

 

 

That being the case (because like most people I don't read small print) this will be my last post on RMweb.

[DavidB-AU]

That does not override the law. Copyright is automatic regardless of what 8.2 says about material being "non-proprietary". It is very poorly worded and unenforceable.

 

Cheers

David

[Andy Y]

No they are not! By definition, and by applicable UK law and international treaties, copyright is automatic and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work. Copyright remains with the author and will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created. It is an offence to copy or adapt the work without the consent of the owner.

 

See also section 3 of the RMWeb Acceptable Use Policy.

 

To be blunt, you have no business being editor of a magazine if you do not understand even the basics of copyright. I suggest you seek urgent legal advice before reproducing anything else from this forum. I do not say that lightly.

 

Cheers

David

 

The review sought to give a balanced opinion and quoted what had been written in the public domain (duly credited); in essence the same as your post quotes Ben.

 

Ben has given a pleasant response to the issue but I feel the tone of your post is less so.

[DavidB-AU]

The review sought to give a balanced opinion and quoted what had been written in the public domain (duly credited)

 

It is NOT public domain! Public domain is a legal concept as it applies to copyright law. Material that is available to the public via the Internet is not public domain simply by reason of its being publicly available. Works in the public domain are those whose intellectual property rights have expired, have been forfeited, or are inapplicable. None of that applies here. Everything posted to this forum is automatically copyright.

 

Ben has given a pleasant response to the issue but I feel the tone of your post is less so.

 

For good reason. His response is demonstrably incorrect and legally very dangerous, both to the publishing entity and him personally. Activities which result in copyright being infringed can raise both civil and criminal law liabilities.

 

The fact that something is posted on this forum does not give anybody the right to copy and distribute it freely or create derivative works, regardless of what the AUP currently says, unless a work's creator expressly gives permission.

 

"While work published on the Internet may be publicly accessible, it is certainly not in the public domain."

https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/copyright_myths

 

Cheers

David

[Ryde-on-time]

That does not override the law. Copyright is automatic regardless of what 8.2 says about material being "non-proprietary". It is very poorly worded and unenforceable.

 

Cheers

David

Every social media site and forum has similar terms including the likes of Facebook & Twitter. As per the link below with these terms companies are saying 'you own your content, but we can just use it however we want.'"

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/9780565/Facebook-terms-and-conditions-why-you-dont-own-your-online-life.html

[beast66606]

But it also says:

 

 

 

That being the case (because like most people I don't read small print) this will be my last post on RMweb.

 

 

Can't see the point of that myself - I view everything I do on here as public, so if I don't want others to download my photos or read my thoughts then I don't post on here - simples (is that copyright ?).

[DavidB-AU]

Can't see the point of that myself - I view everything I do on here as public

It is publicly available but it is not public domain. You own the copyright of everything your write here. Automatically.

 

Cheers

David

[Taz]

Unless I am missing something and if I am reading the T&C correctly you are not being asked to give up copyright. You are being asked to give permission for RMWeb/BRM to use your contributions.

If you do not want them to do that you don't accept the terms and conditions, ergo you do not post on the forum. More simples

[JohnR]

Regardless, surely it is common courtesy to ask beforehand?

[chrisf]

On the other hand, the publication of RMwebbers' views in BRM has led to the return of screen names to the magazine.  It is a pity that they were taken away in the first place.

 

Chris

[Pacific231G]

No they are not! By definition, and by applicable UK law and international treaties, copyright is automatic and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work. Copyright remains with the author and will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created. It is an offence to copy or adapt the work without the consent of the owner.

 

 

David is right about copyright being automatic, though IMHO expressed with quite uncalled for aggression, but he's wrong about its duration. Under UK law, an author's copyright in their written, dramatic, musical or artistic work lasts for 70 years after their death not after publication. He might also want to read up on what really constitutes a criminal rather than a civil breach of copyright before sounding off about criminal penalties.

There is an overview here https://www.gov.uk/copyright/overview

 

However, since October last year, there have been changes in British Copyright law that give greater freedom to quote the works of others without asking for their permission. There must be sufficient acknowledgement and it must genuinely be for the purpose of quotation not to "lift" a substantial part of their work. More on that here

 https://www.gov.uk/exceptions-to-copyright

and it is written in normal English not legalese. 

 

I'm not sure what status clause 8.2 in the Ts & Cs would have legally. I don't think you can be asked to completely relinquish your copyright in the way that "non proprietary" implies but RM may be entitled to assume that though you own the copyright you have granted them some licence to use your work. This is though a complex area and I'm no lawyer.